Indira Gandhi National Open University MBA 1st semester last year question papers

Will you please share with me the Indira Gandhi National Open University MBA 1st semester last year question papers?

[Raman Vij]

As you want to get the Indira Gandhi National Open University MBA 1st semester last year question papers so here it is for you:

l. Briefly describe different skills required for a manager and
discuss the role of a manager in Institution Building.

2. Describe different phases of decision making according to
Mintzberg and their relevance. Discuss any two models of
decision-making process.
3. Explain the process of conflict and different strategies of
conflict management in organisational context. Give
examples.

4. Describe and differentiate between delegation,
decentralisation and centralisation. Discuss the problems in
delegation and how to overcome them to make the process
more eff,ectlve.

5. Write short notes on any three of the following :
(i) Johari window
(ii) Informal communication
(iii) Matrix structure
(iv) Kurt Lewin's model
(v) Domino effect
Read the following case and answer the questions given at
the end.
The ABC Manufacturing Company is a metal
working plant under the direction of a plant manager who
is known as a strict disciplinarian. One day a foreman
noticed Bhola, one of the workers, at the time-clock
punching out two cards his own and the card of
Nathu, a fellow worker. Since it was the rule of the
company that each man must punch out his own card,
the foreman asked Bhola to accompany him to the
Personnel Director, who interpr eted the incident as a
direct violation of a rule and gave immediate notice of
discharge to both workers.
The two workers came to see the Personnel Director
on the following duy. Nathu claimed innocence on the
ground that he had not asked for his card to be punched
and did not know at the time that it was being punched.
He had been oflered a ride by a friend who had already
punched out and who could not wait for him to go
through the punch-out procedure. Nathu was worried
about his wife who was ill at home and was anxious to
reach home as quickly as possible. He planned to take his
card to the foreman the next morning for reinstatement,
a provision sometimes exercised in such cases.
These circumstances were verified by Bhola. He
claimed that he had punched Nathu's card the same time
he punched his own, not being conscious of any
wrongdoing.
The Personnel Director was inclined to believe the
story of the two men but did not feel he could reverse
the action taken. He recognized that these men were
good workers and had good records prior to this incident.
Nevertheless, they had violated a rule for which the
penalty was immediate discharge. He also reminded them
that it was the policy of the company to enforce the rules
without exception.
A f,ew days later the Personnel Director, the Plant
Manager, and the Sales Manager sat together at lunch.
The Sales Manager reported that he was faced with the
necessity of notifying one of their best customers that his
order must be delayed because of the liability of one
.department
to conform to schedule. The department in
question was the one from which the two workers had
been discharged. Not only had it been impossible to
replace these men to date, but disgruntlement over the
incident had led to significant decline in the cooperation
of the other workers.
The Personnel Director and the Sales Manager took
the position that the discha rge of these two valuable men
could have been avoided if there had been provision for
considering the circumstances of the case. They pointed
out that the incident was costly to the company in the
possible loss of a customer, in the dissatisfaction within
the employee group, and in the time and money that
would be involved in recruiting and training replacements.
The Plant Manager could not agree with this point
of view. "We must have rules if we are to have efficiency;
and the rules are no god unless we enforce them.
Furthermore, if we start considering all these variations in
circumstances, we will find ourselves loaded down with
everybody thinking he is an exception. " He admitted that
the grievances were frequent but countered with the point
that they could be of little consequence if the contract
agreed to by the union was followed to the letter.
Questions
(a) Identify the core issues in the case
(b) Place yourself in the position of the Personnel
Director. Which of the following courses of action
would you have chosen and why ?
(i) Would you have discharged both men ?
(ii) Would you have discharged Bhola only ?
(iii) Would you have discharged Nathu'only ?
(iv) Would you have discharged neither of them ?
Justify your choice of decision.
(c) What policy and procedural changes would you
recommend for handling such cases in future ?

Contact Details:
Indira Gandhi National Open University
Maidan Garhi,
IGNOU Rd,
New Delhi,
Delhi 110068 ‎
011 2957 1000 ‎
India

Map Location:

[MAP]https://www.google.co.in/maps?q=Indira+Gandhi+National+Open+University&hl=e n&ll=28.495096,77.204533&spn=0.010598,0.015171&sll =30.353898,76.371224&sspn=0.010406,0.015171&t=m&z= 16&iwloc=A[/MAP]

Will you provide me the sample paper of the MBA 1st semester paper of the Indira Gandhi National Open University ?

[Quick Sam]

As you want I am here providing you sample paper of the MBA 1st semester paper of the Indira Gandhi National Open University.


Sample paper :

Paper : MANAGEMENT FUNCTIONS AND BEHAVIOUR:

Time: 3 hours
Maximum Marks: 100.
MBA exam 1st sem – paper - IGNOU
SECTION A

1. Explain the concept of MBO. Describe its key features and critically analyse the extent of feasibility and usefulness of MBO in the present day business scenario.

2. Briefly describev arious managerialp rocesses and explain major elements of any two of them with suitable examples.

3. How do conflicts get generated in an organizational situation ? How does it impact the group behaviour and functioning of the organization ? Explain with relevant examples.

4. What is differentiation ? How is it done in an organizational set-up ? Discuss briefly with examples the basis of differentiation and its relationship with the choice of hucture.

5. Write short notes on any three of the following :

(a) Process of Organizational Change

(b) Group Formation

(c) Johari Window

(d) Managerial Values and Ethos

(e) Channels of communication

SECTION - B

6. (a) Read carefully the Case And answer the questions given at the end.

Fine Constructions was engaged in the fabrication of heavy structurals. The company had six shops besides engineering, accounts, personnel, sales, and administrative departments. It employed 7000 men. The chief executive of the company was the General Manager.

In one of the shops employing 1000 men, 900 tons of structurars were fabricated every month. The day-to-day management of the shop was entrusted to the Manager, who was assisted by the senior Foreman. The three main sections of the shop were preparation, Marking, And finishing.

In the Marking and Finishing Sections, the work was supervised by two foremen each. The Preparation Section was under the direct supervision of the Senior Foreman, who, in addition, planned and coordinated the work of all the three sections.T he preparations ection was responsible for the collection and classification of works orders, for reading intricate machine And structural drawings, determination of priorities of execution orders, checking bilts of materials, and processing raw materials for fabrication. This section had 200 men on the rolls.

In 1981, the shop started receiving heavy orders, and as the work-load increased considerably, the Senior Foreman was unable To cope with it. On the Manager's recommendation, the General Manager sanctioned two new posts of Foremen for the Preparation Section. Two Progress Incharges attached to the Senior Foreman were thus rendered surplus and their principal work, namely, reporting progress of work in the shop, was transferred to the Production Planning Department. This action of the General Manager had the concurrence of the Manager. The Incharges themselves were not transferred to the Production Planning Department, as this had its own departmental men to take care of this work. They continued on the rolls of the shop, awaiting orders for transfer to vacancies of equivalent grade in other shops.

The minimum qualifications for the recently created posts of Foremen, prescribed by u Joint Committee, were a diploma in engineering And five years' experience in structural shop. The posts were advertised for in the organization but none of the applicants was found suitable for appointment. The Incharges concerned, who were non-matriculates, did not apply, as they did not possessth e prescribed qualifications. The posts were therefore advertised in the press. Three outside candidates applied. Only one appeared for the interview and he was not considered suitable for appointment.

The case of the two surplus Incharges did not come within the purview of the grievance procedure in operation, in the company, as it involved a change in the minimum quarifications prescribed for the post of Foreman. As, however, they were powerful members of the Union executive, the secretary of the reco gnized trade trade union took up their case for appointment as foreman with the Generar Manager. The union Secretary argued that they had been doing part of the foremen's job before the posts were created and, in the absence of suitable candidates they should be preferred for promotion.

The General Manager maintained that the men concerned were not qualified for the posts and did not possess the technical background required to perform the Foremans duties. The written job-descriptions of the posts of progress Incharge and Foreman prepared by the Joint Committee indicated that the job content of the former was only about 25% of that of a Foremary and only, on the administrative side. They did not supervise the work of the Preparatios Section in any way, whete there were mistries in line for promotion. The latter, though good in their own area, could not be promoted as they were not technically qualified to hold the higher position.

After prolonged discussion, the General Manager concededt hat in the circumstancest, he Incharges would be given an opportunity to prove their fitness for the iob. It was also agreed that in the first place, test specifications for the posts of Foreman would be worked out by a Joint Committee and given to the men concerned if they wished, they would also be given guidance for a period of three months, to learn the iob. They would then be subjected to a test by the Training Officer, and if they passed the test, they would be promoted to Foremen.

The Manager communicated this decision to the senior Foreman in the presence of the two men. He readily agreed to give them the necessary guidance whenever they requested it. However they maintained that the decision was not only to give them guidance when asked for, but fulltime training and guidance in order to enable them to pass the test. On hearing this, the Senior Foreman remarked: I have no one to spare primarily for the Purpose of training them to pass the test.

Questions :

(i) What is the main problem in the case?

(ii) Identify and discuss the stage and action required to tackle the problem before it became a grievance. Comment on the role of the management.

(iii) Critically evaluate the grievance and the follow-up action. Evaluate the unionmanagement compromise and its possible consequences with your own point of view, in detail.

(iv) If you were the manager of the 'shop', how would you handle the problem, after the Senior Foreman's remark about sparing the 'Incharges' for three months ?